ietf-xml-mime
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [xml-mime] [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-03.txt

2013-10-28 08:28:09
On 2013-10-16 15:26, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
internet-drafts writes:

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.  This draft is a work item of the Applications Area
Working Group Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : XML Media Types
        Author(s)       : Henry S. Thompson
                           Chris Lilley
        Filename        : draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-03.txt
        Pages           : 27
        Date            : 2013-10-16

Abstract:
    This specification standardizes three media types -- application/xml,
    application/xml-external-parsed-entity, and application/xml-dtd --
    for use in exchanging network entities that are related to the
    Extensible Markup Language (XML) while defining text/xml and text/
    xml-external-parsed-entity as aliases for the respective application/
    types.  This specification also standardizes the '+xml' suffix for
    naming media types outside of these five types when those media types
    represent XML MIME entities.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-03

A thorough exposition of all comments received on the previous draft,
and their resolution, is available at

   http://www.w3.org/XML/2012/10/3023bis/02-comments.html

Many thanks to the commentators, particularly Julian Reschke and Erik
Wilde, for careful reading and helpful input.

An author-markup-based diff is available at

  
http://www.w3.org/XML/2012/10/3023bis/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-03_diff.html

This is much easier to read than the IETF auto-generated one.

Please note in particular that a significant addition has been made to
section 3.6 [1], to address the fact that the XML spec. itself defers
to this spec. to define the precedence of charset parameter, BOM and
XML encoding declaration.

The key new paragraph reads:

   All processors SHOULD treat a BOM (Section 4) as authoritative if it
   is present in an XML MIME entity.  In the absence of a BOM (Section
   4), all processors SHOULD treat the charset parameter as
   authoritative.  Section 4.3.3 of the [XML] specification does _not_
   make it an error for the charset parameter and the XML encoding
   declaration to be inconsistent.

Comments on this section, and wider review, would be very welcome.

ht

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-03#section-3.6

I will probably have to re-read the new document to review what's left to do (please post a new draft early next week when ID submission re-opens).

One thing I noticed is that we now have informative references to HTTPbis, and normative references to RFC 2616. It should be the other way round (so the normative refs should be updated for HTTPbis, and if they can't this might be a problem either in this spec or HTTPbis, in which case it needs to be reported ASAP due to IETF LC).

Best regards, Julian

_______________________________________________
xml-mime mailing list
xml-mime(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml-mime